Senator Harry Reid — (202) 224-3542 — has proposed the following ammendment to House Resolution 2669 — the so-called “College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.” While I rarely agree with the Wall Street Journal letters to the editor, a recent quote seems appropriate: “Every law Congress passes is just another restriction on our freedom, just another poke in the eye with a sharp stick for the average citizen.” — Kurt Kessler, Houston
SA 2314. Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2669, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 802. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
Part G of title IV (20 U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION.
“(a) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title which is among those identified during the prior calendar year by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b)(2), shall—
“(1) provide evidence to the Secretary that the institution has notified students on its policies and procedures related to the illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials by students as required under section 485(a)(1)(P);
“(2) undertake a review, which shall be submitted to the Secretary, of its procedures and plans related to preventing illegal downloading and distribution to determine the program’s effectiveness and implement changes to the program if the changes are needed; and
“(3) provide evidence to the Secretary that the institution has developed a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property.
“(b) IDENTIFICATION.—For purposes of carrying out the requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary shall, on an annual basis, identify—
“(1) the 25 institutions of higher education participating in programs under this title, which have received during the previous calendar year the highest number of written notices from copyright owners, or persons authorized to act on behalf of copyright owners, alleging infringement of copyright by users of the institution’s information technology systems, where such notices identify with specificity the works alleged to be infringed, or a representative list of works alleged to be infringed, the date and time of the alleged infringing conduct together with information sufficient to identify the infringing user, and information sufficient to contact the copyright owner or its authorized representative; and
“(2) from among the 25 institutions described in paragraph (1), those that have received during the previous calendar year not less than 100 notices alleging infringement of copyright by users of the institution’s information technology systems, as described in paragraph (1).”.
I am not a lawyer, but my lay reading is as follows:
If you want any federal grant money:
Tell us you have policies against peer-to-peer file sharing and procedures for dealing with those involved and that your students know it
Tell us how you are continually striving to make your program ever more draconian
Prove to us that you have a magic box that makes everybody obey the law
We have asked the RIAA to put together a “list of shame” containing the 25 schools they hate most.
In theory, the list is limited to schools that have gotten at least 100 notices, but since we don’t provide any guidance here, we’re pretty sure there’ll always be 25 schools on the list.
References
Harry Reid, ‘Amendments Submitted and Proposed’, Congressional Record — Senate (July 17, 2007) <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S9514&position=all> [accessed Saturday, July 21, 2007] (pp. S9514–S9515)
——–